Misconceptions about evolution • Hacker News Board

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#31

Post by aray » Wed, Oct 09, 2013, 9:19 PM UTC

b_emery wrote: post #17

For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…

I knew a few semi-religious scientists in the past.

They were all in line with what we'd probably accept as scientific reasoning behind natural phenomena, but deferred to religion on more philosophical (and not physical) questions: "Why are we here?" "What's the meaning of life?" "Why should I be good towards other people?"

(I know part of these are at least touched on by some of the humanities sciences - moral philosophy and psychology, but the scientists I've experience with were biologists & chemists and not as well versed in those fields as their own)

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#32

Post by Udo » Wed, Oct 09, 2013, 9:19 PM UTC

b_emery wrote: post #17

For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…

> how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another

It's even worse than that. For religious scientists, often belief is directly contradicted by the evidence at hand. The reason this still somewhat works is because humans can exist (and sometimes thrive) in a state of profound cognitive dissonance.

I don't remember right now who said this first, but the phrase "religion poisons everything" comes to mind. Like a trojan on a computer, religion fortifies the brain against external influence. Most insidiously, religion poisons the ability to freely reason about data specifically and the environment generally. If there is such a thing as a poisonous meme, this is it. To use a biochemical phrase, religion has evolved to competitively inhibit the brain's logical and moral facilities, and in doing that it has developed heavily optimized strategies for maximizing infectiousness and resilience.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#33

Post by aray » Wed, Oct 09, 2013, 9:21 PM UTC

ckluis wrote: post #11

My favorite one is: Evolution and Creationism should be given equal time in education. Not even the Catholic Church thinks Creationism should be taught (I'm Catholic if it matters) in school as science. From Wikipedia: Here is viewpoint of the Vatican's chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to…

I'm not sure why "not even the Catholic Church" comes into play (is it the standards bar for forcing religious topics in schools?)

I'm from the bible belt of the USA, and I've only heard this from protestant christians (some of whom I'd use as the standards bar for the above).

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#34

Post by noonespecial » Wed, Oct 09, 2013, 9:23 PM UTC

jcmoscon wrote: post #22

So, nothing exploded and created everything? How come?

You're at least asking the question at the right level. Most people get bogged down arguing about how the something that already was became different stuff that was. "Why is there something and not nothing at all?" is an excellent philosophical base to start building a cosmology on.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#35

Post by liber8 » Wed, Oct 09, 2013, 9:24 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #30

anywherenotes wrote: post #16

Quite interesting. It corrects well the statement "Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population." to: Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.... I think that's a very important clarification, because we may look around and see very diverse…

> Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate Would it make sense to turn it around and say "Natural selection is about unfit individuals in a population dying off"

The most accurate way to phrase it would be to say that "natural selection is about less fit individuals having a decreased chance of passing on their genes."

Evolution is really about which genes are passed on to the next generation. Most of the population at any given time is going to be less-fit than the fittest (by definition). That doesn't mean they don't pass their genes on. While totally unfit people may not be able to pass on their genes at all, many, if not most, of a generally less-fit population will pass on their genes at least one generation. Depending on the quality of the mate they are able to obtain, their genes may not go further than the one generation, or they may keep going for many generations. On average, the less-fit genes will "die off" but this isn't always the case, for many reasons.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#36

Post by dismiss21x » Wed, Oct 09, 2013, 9:25 PM UTC

RK wrote: post #29

ThomPete wrote: post #23

The biggest misconception about evolution is shared both opponents and proponents. Most often the discussion is about whether evolution is true or not. Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point. Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve. There are no finite answers in evolution, only observations of phenomena.…

Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point. Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve. I think you mean that the " theory of evolution via natural selection" is the best model we have to explain the observed phenomena of evolution. Analogous to the Newtownian theory of gravity explaining the mechanics of observ…

I wouldn't say it's observed; no one has observed billions of years of evolution. That's why there is debate. Please don't compare to the observation of gravity; it's not even comparable.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#37

Post by adsr » Wed, Oct 09, 2013, 9:26 PM UTC

b_emery wrote: post #17

For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…

Of course claims about an after life are based on faith, that's true regardless if the claim is that there is or is not an after life.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#38

Post by tetrep » Wed, Oct 09, 2013, 9:27 PM UTC

aray wrote: post #31

b_emery wrote: post #17

For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…

I knew a few semi-religious scientists in the past. They were all in line with what we'd probably accept as scientific reasoning behind natural phenomena, but deferred to religion on more philosophical (and not physical) questions: "Why are we here?" "What's the meaning of life?" "Why should I be good towards other people?" (I know part of these are at least touched on by some of the humanities sciences - moral philo…

if they're willing to ignore huge swaths of divine text what makes the existential statements special?

if someone made a list of statements, most of which were false but some of which were unverifiable why would anyone accept, as truth, the unverified claims?

if anything accept part of the Bible, cherry picking, is worse (logically) than accepting all of it.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#39

Post by es20641 » Wed, Oct 09, 2013, 9:27 PM UTC

standeven wrote: post #3

None of the evolution deniers that I've met would have the slightest interest in reading this list, but I suppose it's useful to quickly look up counter-arguments to their claims. A similar site with a greater focus on creationist claims can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

As someone who believes in both an intelligent designer creating the world, and micro (but not macro) evolution, I am extremely interested in reading this.

I just thought I would let you know :)

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#40

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Oct 09, 2013, 9:28 PM UTC

RK wrote: post #29

ThomPete wrote: post #23

The biggest misconception about evolution is shared both opponents and proponents. Most often the discussion is about whether evolution is true or not. Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point. Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve. There are no finite answers in evolution, only observations of phenomena.…

Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point. Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve. I think you mean that the " theory of evolution via natural selection" is the best model we have to explain the observed phenomena of evolution. Analogous to the Newtownian theory of gravity explaining the mechanics of observ…

perhaps yes and no.

Gravity is a force you can measure, make experiments with and validate.

You can use the scientific method to invalidate gravity. You can't do that with evolution and therefore you can't compare the theory of gravity with the theory of evolution the way I see it.

But I might be wrong.